How Much Would It Cost to Build a Battleship Today?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- Established Titles is now running an early Black Friday Sale. Go to establishedtit... and get an additional 10% off on any purchase with code BATTLESHIP. Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring this video!
In this episode we're talking about the costs associated with building a new or reactivating an old battleship today.
For our previous videos on the Battle of Leyte Gulf:
• World War II Battles
To send Ryan a message on Facebook: / ryanszimanski
To support this channel and Battleship New Jersey, go to:
www.battleship...
Short answer: They'd be comparable in cost to new aircraft carriers. The notion of a new, nuclear powered battleship that's technologically up to date is pretty exciting.
They almost happened with the Arsenal ships. They’re basically battleship missile carriers.
Just an armoured hull covered in torpedos, CiWs and VLS, AshM
Very good answer. My inkling would be a cruiser. The electronics would be a time consuming nightmare. What would be the real challenge would be the armament.
I’d like to see what modern gun technology could do at this scale.
Nuclear powered, heavily defended high precision artillery platforms could be cool. A sure fire way to overcome an enemy vessels CIWS if missiles aren’t viable
@@tyler_bt3326 I'd be curious as well. I recently watched other videos that Ryan did talking to someone about ship designs. It may sound like an impossible comparison, especially when it was Animated nearly 40 years ago, Battleship Yamato aka Starblazers.
Short answer, is would be astronomically higher... No one makes "Grade A" or other grades of Krupp/Cemented/face hardened Armour today, at least not on the scale required to fit a 60kt ship. Those facilities and companies were around, as the infrastructure was built up and required for the market, the regular construction of Navy ships. It's difficult to convince a board of directors, investors, etc. to keep huge facilities for a no longer required purpose.
There was an entire infrastructure built up for the Saturn rocket and its planned successor family. Various specialties and parts to a much larger production and assembly line than any one single factory could produce.
Similar to the Zumwalt's armament, it cost "X" to design and set up production for their battery, and ammunition.
If you spent €1m on that, plus say spent $1000 per shell (very arbitrary numbers btw), and you make 1000 shells, it's costing $2000 per shell. If you make 1 shell, it's costing $1.001m per shell...
It would costs tens of millions just to set up the facilities today near a big enough dockyard, on top of training what would be considered highly skilled and highly specialised labour. They can't take most of the skills they learn to any dry dock for employment, the skill is in such low demand. So now you're spending hundreds of thousands just on the manufacture of labourers, never mind the labour itself... There's also *HUGE* risks in the quality of what you make being terribly low due to mistakes that your newly educated labour aren't even aware of. You also can't rely on supervision and quality control, because most people who have the qualification for that, are in their 80's or older.
If you reignite the Battleship industry, then it's an investment. If you're building a handful of these to last the next half century or longer, it could cost more than the entire G.R.F. fleet, purely from the armour alone.
Not to mention, pre-nuclear Low-background steel is in ever growing demand, and ever dwindling supply, It turns out the highest possible armour requires minimal contaminants, and background radiation turns out to be a somewhat nasty contaminant.
I'd definitely build new. Not only would the maintenance cost be considerably lower, but modernizing and automating many functions would allow for a much smaller crew.
We really don't want modern systems on such a ship. The strength of a battleship in the modern world are its analog systems which are not vulnerable to EMP. EMP kills drone swarms. A battleship can take plenty of hits and also sink a drone carrier.
@@spicywater123it’ll still have some modernity for instance it still needs to be able to fish out damage without being in danger of being well into enemy anything lmao, so you’re going to have to add few things to give it range but that’s really it
Problem is few people consider costs other than the base build cost. Which is stupid.
There are two issues with building battleships these days, the guns, and the armour. And here is the problem, no one has built either for 80 years. There are no existing facilities that have either the specialist equipment or the trained workers to produce either 16 inch guns and barrels, or 14 inch think face hardened battleship armour plate.
The infrastructure and training would have to be built up from scratch, new facilities built to manufacture not only the guns and armour, but also new 16 inch shells. Those facilities and that training is not going to come cheap. But those costs are basically ignored when people start waffling about building modern battleships, which is stupid because WITHOUT those things you cant build modern battleships. Period.
And for what? Exactly what role would new battleships fulfil that existing ships cannot do as well if not better?
@@alganhar1The large guns have no smart munitions, meaning they can fire and not have the issues of the rounds being jammed or intercepted like missiles do. While air superiority is important and why carriers took over, Battleships could potentially be needed in the future.
@@spicywater123People oversell the danger of EMP all the time. EMP is most affective against large power GRIDS, not individual electronic systems. Most military equipment and vehicles would lose 1 or two systems tops, which is already which ships have Damage Control teams. And while a battleship grid would be a big, tempting target, there are ways to shield electronics from the worst of it, which is simply part of the design challenge of modern military equipment, and why it’s so expensive in the first place. A ship like this would have redundant analog backup systems on TOP of redundant analog backup systems, which while not as good as their digital counterparts would be “good enough” (probably about as good as a refit to the old ones would have been) until the DamCon crews can come through to replace the blown relays and fried computers.
I want a fleet of 8 modern battleships. Damn the cost, full speed ahead.
Why
I would join that Navy!!! No questions ask! Could you imagine the look on a enemy sailor's face when he realized battleships were steaming towards his missile cruiser???
maybe as a platform for railguns instead of the artillery cannons
80
@Wesrets Indeed.. the "new" SeaRam system, which used the same radar as the Phalanx but houses 11 sidewinders... they have like 9 miles range compared to the phalanx 1,5 and they can engage multiple targets at once... Having 4 of those on an iowa (like they had with phalanx) together with some modern EW and chaffs, would make for some great anti-ship missile defence!
I honestly believe that the value of being able to put (comparatively) cheap 16" shells anywhere remotely close to a shoreline at these volumes is understated
you misunderstand modern capabilities, a rocket with percision, speed and power far beyond that of cheap 16" shells are simply incomparable, not only does it fail to fit in any current modern naval doctorine, theyre massively inefficent, the range they would have to be to the shoreline to actually attack is far too close, any unguided and esepcially conventional weaponry could easily strike it. Also, how does bombing a shore with shells do anything.?? Most critical naval and military assets that are on the shore can easily be destroyed and disibilitated witha single missile strike...
@@dan9147 bruh you are acting like a professor and yet can't even spell correctly your own language
@@dan9147 Not to mention the fact that battleship would have to get well in range of virtually all shore-based weapon platforms to fire those shells thus leaving it to get sunk the same way the Moskva was (and keep in mind that ship used primarily missiles for offensive operations and as such had no particular reason to venture anywhere near the shoreline as any battleship would need to.
In ww2 when all we had were planes, battleships became useless for everything but being glorified trophies to be paraded about as a means of power projection. Imagine what they'd be now in a modern setting where a man in an air conditioned room could simply sit staring at a screen and blow you and your ship to kingdom come from half way across the entire world, nevermind the fact planes still exist.
@@devvytm Before the battleships were retired, there was talk of developing extended range munitions that were rocket boosted that were promising something like 100+ miles range. Add to that GPS guidance like you see in the M982 Excalibur artillery shells and similar and the ships become less limited. Considering that >40% of the world's population lives within that range of the coast along with the greater part of industry, it becomes less of a limitation than you make it out to be. Of course, hopefully, no one would be dumb enough to thinking sailing a battleship up to an enemy coastline alone to lob some shells to at all a situation that would ever be feasible. There should be plenty of escort ships to protect against missiles with their Aegis systems and similar. Plus side to that approach: munitions that knock a zero off the price tag per explosive warhead and nothing to be salvaged from failures to further the enemy's tech. Downside: the shells would probably be easier to intercept than missiles due to their ballistic arc, but then again they would be much more resistant to destruction that way being nowhere near so fragile as a missile.
@@dan9147 no it can't. It would take several bombs and missiles to destroy a landing site. You can't throw around bombs like shells especially when you've got shells. A guided weapon certainly is better but costly for having to bombard coastal fortification and enemy positions. You can't throw hundreds and thousands of tom hawk's and smart bombs at one beach.
Long term, going for new build would be better. Spare parts would be easier to obtain. Nuclear power, decent armor to defeat current threats, and far easier to upgrade.
Agreed.
Also agree.
Wrong. We don't make "parts" in this country anymore.
I'm pretty sure Ryan have a really good reason why battleships should not be nuclear powered. The reason they are heavily armored is because traditionally their supposed to take the hits and dish them back. Would you really power a ship that's expected to get hit with a couple sophisticated nuclear reactors?
@@bizjetfixr8352 hard disagree, america builds most of its large industrial parts right here in the nation. There's basically no difference between a large bearing for an industrial or power generating facility and a bearing for a large naval turret, building the parts won't be a problem, the problem is transportation. The US rail network is severely overused and under maintained + large road transport is expensive as well. Even at 6 billion per ship, wouldn't be a bad deal.
In the short run, if we just needed battleships for a single mission or two, reactivating old ones would totally be the ideal way to go. But if it’s for the long run, building a brand new ship would be best
Well it wouldn’t be the way to go because the World War Two Iowa class ships use technological systems that no one in the modern day is trained to use. No one is trained to run steam engines. A good friend of mine is a retired merchant marine officer with a steam engineers license and he’s like 70.
Naval gunnery is no longer a core skill, and lack of familiarity with gunnery is what killed 50 people on the Iowa in 1989
So reactivating New Jersey for one mission isn’t practical.
@@eriknervik9003 it would probably something like desert storm or the gulf war where you need something quick and fast in the long term it wouldn't be cost effective to bring back because of the aging equipment. But let's say it's something like a extremely long term mission like the war on terror then you would need new ships.
@@MTF.TAU5..Bob.Not to sound like a smart ass, but there would be no "quick and fast" because of the reasons the gentleman above me just explained to you. Nobody knows how to use ANY of the systems on that ship. If they do, they're 70 or 80 years old, and not coming back to train anyone. Sorry, but this isn't practical in the least. Plus, the men who know how to work those ships have paid their debt to this Country. We can't ask any more of them. Especially at 70+, years old.
@@dextermorgan1 Oh ok, thanks for the explanation.
@@MTF.TAU5..Bob. And there is more to consider when it comes to building new as well. How many facilities do you think make 16 inch guns and barrels these days? Or 14 inch thick face hardened armour?
Answer to those questions is none. To make matters worse those things have not been built in 80 years, which means even young apprentices at the time the last battleship guns and armour were being manufactured are either in their late nineties, or more likely dead.
Yet without those things you cannot build a new battleship, so you will have to start manufacturing large calibre naval guns and battleship grade armour plate from scratch. And to make things even worse the guns are long lead items, they used to order the guns and spare barrels for a new battleship as the keel was laid, thats how long it took to make battleship calibre guns.
You cannot just magic up the expertise and training to make stuff like that overnight if Industry has lost the skills. Those have to be learned again, and it would take YEARS....
It will be better to build new ones. You could build them from scratch to be cheaper to operate daily and Ryan gets to keep his job and make these videos. 😊
it is a function of need.
If the need is immediate and is short term, then we refit and recommission the Iowas.
If the need is not immediate and is long term, then we design and build a new class.
if the need is immediate and is long term, then we do both.
If there is little need, then we do nothing.
😁😎
The barrels for the 16" inch guns could be made. In Pennsylvania the machinery
for such large devices are still in use. The company was once part of Bethlehem
Steel and more than likely they manufactured the original guns for the Iowa class.
It is a safe bet just making a few gun barrels would be very expensive.
No, much of the specialist machinery and equipment would NOT in fact still be there as there were some things required to manufacture battleship calibre guns that could only be used in the manufacture of those guns. Those are long gone. No company is going to keep machinery or facilities of that size around if they are not being used for 80 years.
Making a battleship calibre gun barrel is a LOT more complex than just milling then boring out a piece of steel....
@@alganhar1 This shop is where Bethlehem Steel would do forging and machining of large steel pieces. They built the unusual and difficult and some of the work they did was gun turrets for large capital fighting ships. This equipment could be used for projects other than military as supplying the Navy is a somewhat erratic business. I visited that complex and seeing some of the work in progress and the size of it was very impressive.
I would say men with experience in building 16 inch guns are no longer around. Unless written down, any special knowledge/tricks in machining such devices would be lost.
Unfortunately the Rail gun program was cancelled. They couldn't solve the problem of the barrel being destroyed after a few shots.
Sounds like they need a new think on how to build barrels... hmm?
@@jonathanzentelin2815 lasers for aa roles are still being developed though.
@@죽은_시민의_사회 they are in use in Israel and development has been going on for many decades and successfully testing of prototypes have been done for many decades
Another problem is that railguns had a pretty low budget over the years - but the $500m or so spent over a decade on that, redirected in a couple of years to upgrade missiles may result in something more costly per shot, but it's still something off the shelf upgraded and therefore available faster. Railguns may someday be viable, but right now regular missiles don't have huge tech gulfs to put into service.
Lasers meanwhile might see more use for anti-drone or, ironically, anti-missile work.
@@jonathanzentelin2815 Lasers are absolutely real they can take down missiles and aircraft but there is a lot of secrecy around this because you do not want your enemy to know what status of development you are in.
I served 21 years in the Navy and spent a lot of time thinking about this a couple years ago I sat down and figured this out. A lot of it depends on whether it's nuclear powered or not and how many you are going to build. The design I drew up for fun 990ft x 108ft & 50,000 tons had 2x3 16 in/50 cal guns, 8x2 127mm/62 cal guns, 8x2 30mm guns, 6 20mm Phalanx CIWS, 4 RAM 21cell CIWS, 360 VLS cells for (SM-3/SM-6, ESSM, Tomahawk, & ASROC missles), 8x4 Harpoon Launchers, 2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers, below deck hanger space for 4 SH-60/MH-60 & 4 AH-1Z Helicopters, AEGIS combat system, enough armor to defeat any known anti-ship missile and Nuclear propulsion... From my estimates if you built at least four you could build my design for 3.5 to 4 billion dollars per ship.
Yes Please! 👍
We'll take 8.😊
Do you still have the design? Can you share it?
It costs $3 billion to build an amphib, dude.
Thats cute. Who is going to build the 16 inch guns and the barrels for them? Who is going to build the armour?
Battleship guns and armour have not been made for 80 years. No one alive is in a position to be able to teach anyone the skills required as even the youngest apprentices at that time would now be in their late nineties.
Could those skills be relearned? Absolutely, but it would literally take years, perhaps eve a decade or more in the case of the guns as it literally used to take years to manufacture 15 and 16 inch guns and barrels. Not months, years. They were long lead items that were ordered as the keel was laid. It took almost as long to build the guns as it did to build the ship...
Too many people either do not know that or forget it....
Ryan....you keep tempting all the experienced Naval and Mechanical Engineering types and naval ship Aficionados out here in your audience with interesting Battleship remake/refurbish debate videos like this one...So have you heard any new rumors? As an ole Navy salt with young family now in the active Naval Officer Corp., here is one that I have heard: Apparently there is an interest in returning Battleships to the USN beginning amongst the USN Officer Corp. Its becoming more and more a topic of interest and a topic of significant discussion among the "Younger" active duty US Naval Officer Corp these days from Lt's up to about the Commander level. There is a possibility that this interest will continue to take hold and grow across the USN Officer Corp over the next few years...so "never say never" about the return of those mighty ships, and keep doing the excellent job your doing maintaining the New Jersey and in keeping Battleships in the public awareness like your doing with your excellent series of videos! I found your coverage of the USS Texas drydock period start in Galveston especially interesting! Always a pleasure to watch...
I swear, if they ever reactivate/ refurbish the Iowas, I'm moving the to US to enlist!!!
Really enjoying these Battleship studies. Thanks for the research and work represented in them.
I estimate it will cost at least $3.50, probably a good deal more.
The other issue of a new battleship is someone will basically suggest an arsenal ship, a missile cruiser, or a hybrid to operate helis and STOVL drones/jets while also lobbing missiles around. And then get cancelled before it sees a single bit of steel cut after it costs $3.5bn on R&D alone due to mission creep.
Get outta here Loch Ness monster!!
Goddamn it monsta!
I think the arsenal ship is the future. Just think of an oil tanker sized ship full of VLS. Already have the facilities for the build, relatively cheap with a minimal crew.
@@jimtalbott9535 That Loch Ness Monster always looking for a handout...about tree fiddy.
@@fathead8933 I've thought of a mega Q ship disguised as a mega container ship. All those containers stacked high on the edges packed with salty evil surprises inside and hiding a hollow core of choppers and VLS. Just a pipe dream, but imagine such a ship operating off of Somalia, or in the Malacca Straights. It looks like a big fat piñata, surprise!!!
One thing the Iowas were really good at was the display of power with their big hull and big guns. Nuclear subs don't really fit that role since they work hard not to be seen. Supercarriers can pull it off by virtue of their size but they really need to be out at sea to flex their muscle. Burkes and Ticonderogas look cool, but keep most of their armament under cover. So to answer the question, I'd be looking for a new design which carries forward that idea of visible force which looks imposing even when tied at the pier.
Its time for the Ryan-class battleships
How many curators long it would be?
Honestly, I believe a better place to start would be modernizing an Alaska class Battle Cruiser. Six 12" guns in the front and a missile launcher in the rear, along with armor that while not up to the Iowa class would be proof against any modern missiles or guns in use today. And build enough to match one up with each of the Amphibious groups, so they can provide some serious ground support in case the Marines do need to land on the ground.
As there are really no "capitol ships" anymore an Iowa class would be overkill in most cases. But a Battle Cruiser built with good armor and six large guns for shore support would be of great use when paired with the Amphibious groups like the USS America. Especially if they made RAP rocket assisted projectiles for it. A 12" shell with a range of 100 miles would be enough to scare most adversaries.
Having never made it higher than being frocked for First Class as a Machinist's Mate, not sure I am the greatest expert in the world, but here goes.
1. New drydocks for the work, with significantly deeper draft
2. bring them in, but with the blockwork to support them higher than normal
3. drop out the boilers from below, replace with gas turbines
a. shaft goes to generators, replacing Ship's Service Turbo Generators (SSTGs)
b. Heat exchangers make 600 PSI steam, which allows propulsion turbines/reduction gears to work as designed
4. upgrade fuel stowage to modern fuels, taking advantage of "up from Below" opportunity
5. Add counter-torpedo
6. Replace 5" guns with...
Result is
1. MUCH smaller crew (fewer BT/MMs mean fewer cooks, yeomen, ship's servicemen, etc.), allowing berthing to be improved to modern standards
2. Existing training pipeline for GS rating
3. Better fuel efficiency, existing fuel logistics
4. existing spares/repairs for gas turbine engines
5. MUCH higher electrical output for Electronic Warfare/directed energy weapons
Interesting, like rebuilding a WW2 tank to fight and survive in todays combat environment. It's like my parents farmhouse. A wonderful and sturdy design but you're still working with some 19th and 20th century designs and materials. You're limited to the existing frame and hull.
Have you read the book Yellow Eyes by John Ringo? It's a fun read and features Cruisers USS Des Moines (CA-134), and USS Salem (CA-139).
Yeah but is it worth it?
I don't think that the modernizations proposed would significantly reduce the crew. Most of the crew are in the gun turrets (70 per turret) plus those in handling, fire control, and the like. I like the idea of going in from below. As well as removing the 5in guns would be beneficial as they are almost useless in modern combat. If replaced with automatic anti-missile/anti-air weapons, this could be good. Combined with an increased complement of anti-air missiles and anti-surface missiles would be very effective. I don't believe the added torpedo defense would be necessary as battleship, normally never go anywhere without support. With new 16in guns, with higher pressure and muzzle energy, she would also be able to deal with threats at much further range more inexpensively than a missile.
@@michaelblanton8269 I can agree with you but I think it has been a big mistake terminating the rail gun despite its massive problems....
@@paoloviti6156 I believe you are right about that. It could have worked through the bugs giv3n time and development
Build new, or reactivate?
Well, that depends on why we need battleships I suppose. If we're, say, suddenly at war in the Pacific, and the Marines find that they don't have enough fire support, reactivation is really the only timely option. It's much easier for me to imagine that scenario then one where there is time and money to build new battleships.
I recall hearing something about how they never replaced the analog fire control computer because back in the eighties they couldn't build an electronic version that could do the job any better. Wondering if maybe analog is still the way to go since an EMP can't shut it down.
Probably portable EMP isn't sci fi anymore.
You could build a better fire control system in the 1980s, the question is would it really matter? No one expected that they would be used against enemy ships, it would be against moving targets you could improve them. They had a missile system for that.
The guns were primarily there for short bombardment and for that usage the WWII system do the job just fine. That was what the gun was used for in the 1980-90s
You can protect the system from EMP. A Faraday cage is just a metal box so you can have the fire control electronic totally insulated from the outside. You can use optical fiber for communication. The only conduct to the outside that you need is the power supply and you can filter it.
@@target844 Well, the analog fire control computer is pretty good on moving targets as well. I guess it just wasn't worth it back then to try and develop and test an electronic system when the original works just fine.
An analogue computer would be useless, there would be no way to make one to interface with modern ammunition like GPS, rocket assisted rounds or seekers. The EMP effect is a bit over played and requires nukes, if they are flying you have way bigger problems. EMP is pretty easy to shield against, especially when you're already in a giant metal box. We know how to do it even in extreme environments like satellites from all but the most powerful solar flares. When everything else will be packed with electronics, why skip it for the guns?.
Assuming new builds, might as well make the guns autoloaders to take advantage of electronics rather than have dozens of dudes. All your secondarily would be an OTO Melara variant as that is super easy. That can fire more rounds than all those twin turrets.
An emp, if it reached the fire control computer at all, would PBL still do crippling damage to the ship
For tight spots, a battleship that is very hard to sink would be useful.
Exocet?
You could use it as a vessel to attract enemy attention so it can draw the enemy away or into a trap because most of the radars would be focusing on the battleship because of its big size on the radar
If I had a gun to my head, I would scratch-build a design following the design philosophy and aesthetic of Jean Bart. Main guns for shore bombardment, perhaps railguns if they're available, but a focus on missiles, both surface to air and surface to surface, utilizing the aft section of the ship. Honestly it would have more in common with an arsenal ship than a battleship, maybe 50/50
i like this idea, would you keep JB's 150mm secondary guns (or a modernized equivalent) or leave this part of her design out?
You're thinking sort of like I am... I'm impressed you know about the Arsenal design study.
More or less what I would build, 6 forward main guns, 4 5 inch automatics, the stern being entirely VLS tubes, Harpoon launchers, 4 CIWS and the latest electronic warfare suites.
Be a pretty formidable ship that's for sure.
@@alienXcow24 I would strip out the aft-mounted secondaries and use the space for the VLS suit and a helicopter or drone hanger. Then the positions of the 100mm guns would have replacements consisting of modern 127mm guns and 20mm CIWS, two on each side.
Depending on the power output of the engines, the CIWS could be replaced with a laser system.
And, as gun weaponry become further obsolete , the forward barbettes could be changed out to house a weapon system to target ICBMs, put the tracking system in one slot and the laser in the other. But the ship's internals would have to be VERY modular
So basically you are describing the Moscow class battleship from modern warship which she have a 16 inch (idk what caliber of the cannon) 5 secondary weapon and 6 grenade launcher midship (idk if it midship or near the aft) and it also have vls and a helipad in the aft, I suggest watching one of the Moscow class battleship show case to get a better view of it
I say reactivate one and modernize. This will give a base line and provide some insight on what needs to be improved in the next Gen and give workers /machine shops/ & builders some hands on experience with the battle ships to help them build new modern ones next / cheaper
From a pure financial perspective, reactivating the Iowas in the short term would be the Better option, but as you pointed out due to huge maintenance costs impractical long term. From a long term and economic perspective, the benefits of building new ships would doubtless outweigh the extra expense. From the increased jobs necessary to build the new infrastructure, along with the ships themselves such a program would cost 10s of billions, but would also provide massive stimulus at the same time and create likely thousands of new jobs.
But first a gunnery needs to have the same range as cruise missiles. and that's hitech thing.
At this moment the closest things to Newgen Battleships would be more like Ironclads with Chobhams armor, 155mm main guns, VLS missiles, torpedoes, and CIWS, all hooked to AEGIS.
erm i'm talking about sizes, rightnow it can't have the Supercarrier size now since i see no reasons to justify that.
And that has to be slightly bigger than DDGX but not as expensive as Zumwalts.
@@DiscothecaImperialis There is no need to have the guns have the same range as a cruise missile.When Desert Storm started,the first barrage of cruise missiles to hit Bagdad,came from the battleships.The technology is there to increase the range for the guns out to 50 + miles which is plenty if they can keep the accuracy they had within 20 miles.As someone said earlier,pull some of the 5 in mounts to put in more close in defensive weapons,and you should be good to go.On the plus side that nobody has mentioned,with just about everything on the Iowa's still being analog, they could be about the only thing that could continue to operate after an EMP blast.
@@dochlldy Don't say that Iowas at their work days still uses arrays of Leijimeters:P?
Watched this and went back and watched some of the earlier videos. You have gotten a lot better with your flow and presentation.
Before we talk about how we'd engineer a new battleship, we should probably settle on a mission. It makes sense to build enormous aircraft carriers because they can project power for hundreds of miles in every direction. Likewise, the rest of the ships in the battle group have similar power projection capabilities.
A battleship, on the other hand, exists to give her enormous guns a ride to work. Because guns have limited range compared to missiles, it was important to have significant armor to remain in the fight against a peer adversary. But sadly, the battleship's primary mission of going toe to toe against other battleships has been over for more than 80 years. That leaves shore bombardment.
As cool as a new, modern battleship would be, there are cheaper and less risky means to that end. Other than national vanity, I don't see a mission for a warship that resembles the capabilities of a battleship. Maybe there's a place for an upsized missile boat with larger capacity that could serve as a central fleet replenishment repository, extending the ability of a fleet to stay in a hostile region longer, but that seems a stretch... And it certainly wouldn't be a battleship in the traditional sense.
Also getting into gun range of a hostile coast might not be the best idea, just ask the Moskva.
A battleship like the Iowas wouldn't work. I think something like a WWI/WWII British Monitor might be more effective for shore bombardment. So figure a single turret or gunhouse with one maybe 2 heavy guns. Since the Navy has gotten rid of most of the things concerning 16 inch guns and their ammunition we really don't even have to stick with that caliber anymore. Really anything between 8 and 18 inch could probably work! It's more than the current 5 inch guns on our cruisers and destroyers. We will not speak of the execrable, non-usable guns of the Zumwalts!!
Also, a couple of 3 inch OTO Melara guns for stuff like small surface ship/ anti-aircraft defense with some Phalanx point defense guns and/or RAM point defense missiles. Now here's where we decide on it being a single or multi-mission ship. If anyone is familiar with the Arsenal ship concept where they wanted to put about 300 missiles on one ship I don't see why you couldn't put a shitload of missiles on the opposite end of the ship from where your big gun(s) turret is. It would probably avoid the overpressure issues that prevented the Iowas from getting Sea Sparrow launchers put on in the 80's. A Ticonderoga class cruiser has 122 missiles and the Burkes have 90. Surely we can at least equal a Tico? Not to mention it would be easy to mix anti-ship, anti-air, land attack, anti-submarine and even some anti-ballistic missiles together to fit your situation. Propulsion could decide where you build these things. I think Newport News might be about the only place in the country where they build nuclear powered ships. So a conventional propulsion system, say CODAG (combined diesel and gas turbine) would give you more shipyards as options and let Newport News stick to carriers and subs. Anyway that's my 2 cents!!😁
The problem is, missiles can be jammed or intercepted by anti missile measures. The Mark 7 16" gun has a range of 23 miles and change. I'm sure a modern 16" gun could be built to shoot possibly twice as far, which is beneficial. Naval munitions are dumb compared to missiles which can be an asset on the modern battlefield.
Rail guns are a pipedream. They have too short of a barrel life and require way too much power. 5" gauss rifles could be way better.
Definitely build new. The initial up front cost of restarting production would be a one-time deal, so that's spread across all the new BBs you build. So, build up to Jutland numbers, and that's a minuscule cost per unit!
So smart just build 100 of them and then the unit costs go down.
Ryan made a very sad and realistic point. We no longer have the wherewithal to do it. We would have to practically retool the country.
All for a ship that would not have a purpose. 25 mile gun range isint effective when modern naval combat takes place at 100+ miles with anti-ship missles.
@@TrickyClaw Didn't they install missiles on these things anyways back when they were still in service? Either way, I think the argument about bringing battleships back centered around having a ship which can take large amounts of damage from enemy ships versus the current hulls which can't take very much damage, relatively. Don't think they would bother with 16" guns and would just give it an obscene amount of missiles and armor, plus probably anti missile capabilities for days.
@@Matthew-li7we yeah, Iowa still has her cruise missle boxes. Deal is, to make it effective in ship to ship combat these days youde have to remove 2 of her gun turrets for more room for anti-ship missles, and quite a few more R2D2 anti-missle defense turrets. The 5 inch guns would be effectively useless, and the 16s would see extremely little use. Her armor would also not be of that much use against a good AP missle, should it get through the anti-air defense.
Perhaps it will drive tech forward ie 3d printing
It also would be not be feasible to build full-size computers using vacuum tubes. You'd need to retool to make enough of them, and, in the end, why bother?
My question is what would a modern anti-ship missile do to battleship armor plate? Of course, the modern Harpoon missile would beeline for the superstructure to take out all the control electronics to achieve a "mission kill".
Definitely build new. 6 ship class so we have 1 on duty at all times in the Atlantic and Pacific. Hull form similar to Vanguard for seaworthiness and enhanced TDS. 4x3 gun 16" turrets(autoloaders if possible). Modern crew accommodations. Automate as much as possible. 4x1 5" lightweight deck guns. 8x1 76mm lightweight deck guns off the LCS. Modernized Goalkeeper 30mm CWIS. SeaRAM. As many of each as can fit. Sonar and ASROC for self defense.
Battleships are gun platforms, keep the mission gun-oriented and give the ships enough defenses that subs and missiles aren't as much of a threat. Missile defense and offense are for the Burkes and Ticos. Keep it there.
Make these ships the diplomatic platform like Ryan has said a few times. A Battleship is meant to be in your face with all the guns all the time. Over the horizon isn't an effective diplomatic tool.
There is no need for 16" guns 6 - " would be mor than enough to obliberate any opponent. Even the AP ammo from an "AVENGER" is enought to make Swiss cheese of the of almost any modern surface ship, provided the plane or vessel can dodge the defences.
@@EK-gr9gd Not about firepower. It's about range. You can sabot a 16" round and get miles more range.
@@zbiggun7594 100 km , 62 miles should be more than enough
@@EK-gr9gd No such thing. A 6 inch gun has to compete with cruise missiles. They have about the same effect on target. An 11 or 13 inch sabot is going to outdo even a Russian cruise missile for effect on target. And you still have the option of the 16in rounds closer in.
@@zbiggun7594 The disadvantige with CMs is the required lock on target. No cm can compete with tube artillery, in that area.
Just look at MRSI, no cm could do something like that. Not even the NSM.
Ask a marine which he would prefer, a saturation with 3 - 6" Shells or some cm.
Ryan it`s great listening to you. You have so much knowledge of these ships. I think they would need you for an advisor.
The book "Yellow Eyes" by John Ringo and Tom Kratman explored some fun ideas like this...some very Sci Fi/unpossible though. In the book, they reactivate the Texas and the Salem and Des Moines ( prior to scrapping) with full modernization. It made for a fun read.
Said modernization taking the form of complete rebuild atom by atom via molecular scale nanites, guided by "space wizzards."
We're still waiting on the sequels, John. *tapping feet* :)
@@muskaos We should send angry emails. They will hear the foot tapping then.
A book called "A fine and private war" tells a story about a Fletcher Class destroyer with an experimental diesel/electric drive system. The fictional ship was finished but never commissioned. It was placed in a mothball fleet then purchased by a cabal of billionaires to be converted to a private yacht.
After a fictional terrorist organization threaten their families, they arm it with high energy weapons (lasers and focused EMP weapons) directed by an advanced AI to deal with the threat.
It was called USS Watson. I lost my copy of the book so I can't recall the details.
The plans for the ship exist but she wasn't built.
It probably only takes one modern acoustic or wake homing torpedo to guide itself onto the propulsion of a battleship to make it a sitting duck. The massive torpedo belt for a battleship like the Iowa is completely useless against this kind of attack.
A lot would depend on how many ships they'd want, how quick they'd want them, and the specific reason(s) for wanting them about whether I'd build new or reactivate the old ones.
I love the look and sound of a Iowa class ship, but the fact is the battleships had their time in the sun, but a large carrier and submarine force would be better money spent.
Absolutely build new. The day-to-day support costs for an 80--year old Iowa-class battleship would be the deal-breaker. The new ship could not be a one-off. It would have to be a class of ships being built for some purpose by the Navy.
I was interested myself on this question. Glad you guys covered this.
New Build, Gas Turbine, Sink a ton more into the rail gun program or powder charges is the big question I think. Battleships are meant to take hits when needed so the nuclear reactor isn't the best option.
The alternative is to go Nuclear and treat it more like a Carrier. Have an armored missile ship with heavy defense that you keep in the backfield like artillery.
With longer barrels and base bleed rounds i think 80km plus ranges would be possible.
If building a new battleship I would replace the concept of the 16 inch guns with VLS launchers for a combination of long range cruise missiles, anti air and anti ship missiles. And amidships a suite of dual purpose guns for closer range engagements and Cwis. But I definitely would keep the armor to make sure it can take the beating it dishes out.
Quite my idea. design a new ship, armored outside, protected inside. having Burke aramid armors for vital rooms, and Chobham or other Material Science wonders added to the hull. the size can be about as Zummwalts but stronger.
The point is, the ship shouldn't be too expensive, and this means build it with 'what we have' first.
And that has to be superior to DDGX being developed rightnow.
Can you imagine what type of armor you would use...depleted Uranium plates like they use on our tanks and carbon fiber/projectile-proof type material. The outer hull would incorporate a torpedo shield similar to the bubbles they installed during WW 2. I would build from scratch because you would want to use Nuclear power. You would also want to set up a different style of screw and rudder placement so they wouldn't be exposed and use the same screw system and propellers like our top secret subs use to make the ships more quiet. Cruise ships have the horizontal propulsion so the ship can move sideways is an idea to consider. Set up a drone shield system where you can control 10-50 drones for ship protection. Replace the 16 inch guns with rail guns and don't forget lasers. The Panama canal has been expanded so ship size wouldn't be as much of an issue like it was during WW2. The possibilities are endless. With automation and computer/robotic improvements you could run these with far less personnel like the Ford Carriers are implementing. Just thinking out loud.
Isn't there a new armor being developed? Ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene IIRC. But that's for body armor. You'd think vessels soon sporting composite armor?
@@Joshua_N-A I don' really know. I don't think they would use 1 ft of carbon steel to surround the vital areas but I'm not up on the latest ship armor technology. Light, stronger, and less thickness would be the ultimate goal since you would need to keep up with the carrier group. Can you imagine the firepower a new battleship could have?
A modern battleship would rely much more on active defenses like interceptor missiles and CIWS than passive armor. However, people often focus on the thick armor of a battleship, but that was not their only defense. A more important one in my opinion would be redunancy, compartments and generally be more rugged. A battleship should be able to take a hit head on and still be combat effective, even if it penetrated the armor.
Unless you hit the magasines, the battleships would still operate with extensive damage to multiple systems. Modern ships have way less of that.
Add lots of active systems to kill incomming threats before they hit you ... then let redundancies and high structural integrity save you for those you cant intercept. Be a floating Rocky Balboa! 😀
I picture a modernized battleships would probobly have active protection instead of armor, just aa defensed on it to its very limits, some humble offenses but its too big for any major offensive doctrine in modern era, battleship doctrine was pretty outdated in ww2, arguable even in WW1, just too many of their shot will miss to make it work
Instead of the standard AA turrets surrounding the super structure you could have like 5-6 CIWS systems on either side to protect the command bridge from potential airstrikes. I agree with the rail gun turrets. They would be sick. Only concern is power generation. Rail guns use up an ungodly amount of power so you'd need some powerful reactors and potentially high cap batteries to store the energy to recharge the guns in a reasonable time. One of the good things about rail guns is that their ammo is lighter and more compact than your average battleship ammo so you could store/carry more ammo. Also some missile tubes might be a good idea. Another thing I'd add/change is the standard ball baring turret rotation. Change that to electromagnetic levitation to help the turrets turn faster. We'd also need emp shielding considering this concept runs entirely on electronic systems
An interesting exercise would be to design a modern "battleship" using only existing or easily obtainable technologies. Nuclear powered, Aegis system, armed with long range (rocket assisted) guns, long range land attack missiles, surface to air missiles, possibly anti-satellite missiles, close in defense missiles/guns, armored with current tech steel/composites/kevlar etc. Highly automated to keep crew to at most 300-350 (comparable to AB DDG).
Crew of 300-350 would probably be hard. An Arleigh Burke has about 300 and that's relatively modern. A battleship is supposed to have redundancies to let it continue fighting even after suffering hits. That also inclueds personell... both for operation AND damage control.
@@user-mk8kx1rr1g USS Zumwalt has only 158 crew.
@@dogsbdAnd it can’t do damage control. The current obsession with limited manning is stupid.
Why build one huge single target when you can spread the same offensive capability to several smaller ships that makes enemy weapons systems have a harder time tracking them all?
It would be funny seeing these old museum ships in service, these are so valuable historically that they would have to be escorted at all times by a submarine and a fully armed carrier. As these battleships were designed to escort carriers, it is funny.
What do you think of the Arsenal Ship concept? Essentially a scaled-up missile cruiser with a huge collection of missiles for a variety of missions, the artwork by DARPA was depicted as BBGN-72, a successor to the last battleship ordered, USS Louisiana, BB-71.
Take the Iowa class, gut the engine rooms and give them two S9G reactors. This would fix the cost of fuel at this point of time. They are reactors that the Navy if very familiar with. The Iowa's were already fitted with cruise missiles. That system would just need to be modernized and expanded. Improved radars and other electronics would systems the Navy already has in place on other large combatants so the problem is how to redesign the superstructure to fit the new systems. The one big question is since the S9G is going to be a lot quieter than the old powerplant, what do you do for sonar? Two ASW helos, a variable depth towed array, a UAV, and a hull array? Or don't bother because anywhere it goes a Virginia or two will be assigned?
I think you'd end up losing the rear 16" turret in the process. However that would allow for VLS systems to be added. I think it would end up like a larger Soviet Moskva Helo carrier at that point. Which wouldn't be bad in of itself. I think the process of refitting would just be too high a cost when you can just add more Ticonderogas and Arleigh-Burkes, which would disperse your firepower over more platforms rather than making one large target that the US couldn't afford to lose.
Its a Battleship. Heavy ASW is what your escorts are for. I would imagine an ASW similar to a carrier.
Replacing the power plants sounds good but it won't be so easy. Ryan pointed out in another video that cutting through the six inch armored deck, triple bottom or the belt to get in to do the work would not be practical. The cost would be astronomical. It could probably be done, but you would still have an 80 year old vessel to maintain.
It may be wiser to replace B turret with the missile farm
The US already considered modernizing the Iowas in order to be an answer to the Kirov Battlecruiser, but it was decided it wasn't worth the cost. You'd basically have to gut the entire ship.
Interesting subject and as you say Ryan it is a debate that will never end :). Personally I think it would be a mistake to reactivate the existing Museum Battleships. Not just because of the cost. The biggest issue is their age. They are no spring chickens anymore. The steel I would guess in places is less than a 1/3rd of original now or even less. The maintenance, The wiring. The engines. The hull. The weapons systems. Would all need major work to get it operational. I feel leave the old girls as they are as a good reminder of how things used to be. If going to do more. Then build new modern ones built to modern specifications and equipment. For a start it would make replacement parts so much easier. Yes, would be a higher cost initially. But, longer term it would be cheaper and you would get a lot longer life out of them rather than worrying about metal fatigue sinking one.
All valid points. Also, no one would readily volunteer to serve on the reactivated ships. The crew amenities are nonexistent, the systems unfamiliar, etc. It would have to be an incentivized special program like the LCS' were.
Having visited Heavy Cruiser Salem last year and just yesterday getting a " Firepower tour " on board Massachusetts with Dr. John Scholes I can say that the existing gunnery systems on these ships were masterpieces of naval construction and had many ways of putting their ordinance on target. As an intermediate step a refit of Salem with modern missile systems could be done quickly and relatively cheaply and we have seen how effective the Newport News was in Vietnam. Following training cruises more modern long range ordinance for the 8" 55 caliber gun could be developed ( rocket assisted shells ) and a new cruiser design based on the Salem could also be developed. We have no replacement design for the CG - 47 class and I think it could be a modified Salem.
Refitting Salem would be just as difficult as bringing back an Iowa. Same problems on a smaller, less capable ship that would be a huge manpower problem.
@@rocketguardian2001 what if we made a De Moines class Cruiser but made it to the same standard as a potential predecessor to the CG Class. it would be a hell of a lot easier then doing the same with any battle ship let alone an Iowa class. especially since it would not be such a huge power drain because of not needing such huge engine performance to get a ship that large up to a decent speed among other things such as power to weapon systems, sensors, and crew comforts across such a large ship
Back in the day when the USN refitted its existing (Baltimore class) cruisers with missiles, it was already deemed cost-prohibitive
@@Wannes_ yes I believe that's why they refitted the Cleveland class instead, although they came out with huge superstructure that made them look like they would tip over in a light crosswind
How farther would rocket assisted shells go compared to regular gun shells (available techs proably in use in the Army today maybe?)
that 8 inch (160mm ) stuff.
Did Salem has armor platings too?
I don't know if anyone else mentioned it, but you should plan for a build run of 6 and not 4. I think that was the original plan back in the day, and you can split the tooling costs 6 ways using that plan
If you want a ship, you need to have 3. Tgats the rule of thumb. Because one will be in scheduled maintenance, on ein Training and only one at full operational capability. With 4 you get a spare to either have 2 operational sometimes or later to compensate for unscheduled repairs and modernization.
As has been mentioned previously, armor would have to be radically different than face hardened class A/B. I'm guessing a combination of layered and reactive armors, so now you're looking at two types of systems to research.
To compensate, the navy would probably use the platform to also push for next generation active defense systems with more layered defense systems (long range counter-missile defense, switchblade like drone swarms seeking incoming threats, laser defense systems, upgraded CIWS, and armor).
You might be also looking at less barreled weapons with automated loading systems to compensate. Something akin to a 4 barrel battleship with an upgraded Salem style autoloader system. I doubt it would have 5 inch guns, but it opt to have additional vertical launching systems instead.
So, looking at it that way, it would likely be a vastly different ship design than what we would be thinking about.
My thoughts had always been probably 5-6 inches of armor, 6 forward main guns, 4 of the automatic 5 inch (2 forward 2 aft), and the stern being entirely VLS tubes, and Harpoon launchers. Along with all the latest electronic warfare suites, CIWS, etc.
So would still look every bit like a battleship, but be a very different animal under the skin.
Kevlar armor could be layered in where needed? I know many ships use large amounts of Kevlar in their armor scheme these days.
What about the Chobam Armor the Army uses for its tanks? An armored ship presents far fewer problems than a tank, and so could be quite a bit more effective than tank armor.
@@davidbriggs7365 Chobam Armor is designed to deal with sub-caliber high velocity projectiles and shaped charge jets, not large masses of explosive.
In the UK, there are no steel mills that are capable of rolling armour plate left.
Back in the 80s, when we had nattleships, I attended the Naval Gunfire Spotters Course. Our instructors were USMC officers, and they told us that reactivating BBs was in part because we no longer had the industrial ability to make the armor, etc. . Something to think about. One instructor opined--and was sure to point out it was opinion-- that we would use composite armor etc, and they would cost more than a Nimitz class CVN.
New versus reactivate would be determined by how quickly they are needed. If you needed these battleships immediately and they could be effective within a year that would be the right choice. If you need this level of Firepower over an extended period of time buying new is the answer.
New = peacetime
Reactivate = wartime
Something like that?
Hey Ryan, you forgot an important caveat in your question at the end. That being, how quickly does the new Navy Commander needs the ships? If there is no pressing need, build new, and take the time to do it right. If for some reason you need all the ships yesterday, then refit the old ones, while simultaneously building up the infrastructure to get new ones in the water ASAP. Like you said, the old ones could probably be refit within a year. New ones on the other hand would probably take no less than 5 given the lack of infrastructure.
more importantly, what kind of biscuits would it carry? with modern cooking and with a host of new and exciting materials being available?
A good portion of the Nimitz carriers were built in the 90's as well. The newest of the Nimitz carriers (Bush) didn't even commission until late 2000's
I'd probably try to push even though I love New Jersey, but if I had to get battleships back I'd build a set of 4 new ships or 4 new des Moines class ships
I would build new ships. A modernized, nuclear powered battleship could emphasize features that make sense in modern warfare and not have Washington Naval Treaty or even Panama Canal compromises.
Well, I would partially reactivate the Iowa class while building new ones. A lot of stuff can be trained on an Iowa class, even when they eventually serve on a more modern version. And considering there are naval installations close to 3 out of 4, that is practical as well so no need to spend money on moving them somewhere else. Spending the money on keeping them afloat in active service is not worth it today. They are too old to serve by now. And considering the amount of work it takes to make them ready again, including the training on completely obsolete systems, they aren't even worth reactivating as a last ditch effort. Midway or an Essex class is probably a better choice in that case when large ships are needed while all other options are gone or too few left.
But considering their size, the amount of fire power through guns and missiles, especially when they are planned with them in mind, the amount of aircraft protection they can have because of how large they are, the fact that they are more durable than most ships, that there are 3 states without a BB named after them, 2 without a major warship that was completed and that with enough speed they pose a threat to most possibly hostile ships when they enter gun range, a new class could very well work. Especially since in the best case for the US countries like China and Russia are feeling forced to strain their resources by also building battleships of their own. Especially since modern missiles don't really have the warhead to cause a lot of damage
Navies don't have the Warheads to penetrate Battleship armour because there is no requirement, but Armies have warheads that can penetrate heavily armoured Tanks, so all you would have to do is upscale the anti-tank warheads and fit them to anti-ship Missiles. You also cannot fit heavy armour high up on the superstructure so if you put 3-4 missiles into the superstructure of a heavily armoured battleship, you may not sink it, but you will at least mission kill it.
@@Harldin Well, you can't compare tank armour to battleship armour. Especially since they can take hits, unlike a tank. If something penetrates a tanks armour, the crew is lucky when they manage to escape. A well made battleship wouldn't be in danger from 1 (non nuclear) missile. Then there is the factor of air defence (aka you can put the stuff other navy ships use for air defence on them and in larger quantities) and that there is always the question: Do they even manage to hit it? The Iraqis tried attacking the Missouri with missiles for example, but they never came close to impact. Since there are usually also escort fleets. With the same logic: Why are aircraft carriers still build? They are an equally large target and not armoured (compared to a BB)
@@Hendricus56 We are talking about armour so why are you bringing up AD systems? You put a modern Hypersonic Missile into the superstructure of a Battleship and it will at the very least mission kill it, no radar, no CMS, no way to see or stop the next 3-4 inbound hypersonics. Burnt out hulks floating on the ocean have no use to anyone. You don't have to sink a warship to kill it, the British Battleships didn't sink the Bismarck, a Cruiser firing 4 Torpedoes did, And you will sink a Battleship with 1 Missile if you get that Missile into a Magazine Ie: Hood and Arizona.
Unsinkable warships have never existed and never will, someone builds the perfect warship, someone else invents a way to destroy it.
@@Harldin Why I brought up AA guns? Since they are an obstacle for missiles to overcome. Then there is the 2nd point of the escort fleet, which provides additional defence (and did so already during the Iraq war the Iowa class was active in). And you completely ignored my point of aircraft carriers having the same situation. Hit their bridge and their options are limited. And hitting the magazine? You are lucky when your missile hits the hull outside of it. But considering that it is the most protected area, it will also be the hardest to ignite
You might see if you can incorporate smart munitions for the guns like the military has for the ground pounder. Factories can be converted to make the guns! I can however, see your point about reactivating old ships versus building new.
Even after you paid for your new 16 inch barrels, you would need another two or three billion to tool up, stock up and sustain the new 16 inch ammunition
.
There is no tooling, there is no stock.
There is no supplier of bags of powder in silk bags.
And then... there are no fuses for these new shells, another few millions there.
Good content
Where the guns were made on the Hudson was having a hard enough time getting the line for the M1 tank gun going again. I COULd see the trying a 16 inch gun. Now 155 is another story. They are geared up for that
And then you have a battleship with guns that can hit a target at 40km, maybe new tech can bring that to 60km (unless railguns ever get a lucky break,, but those aren't suited for 'shore' bombardment)
So millions of dollars in stocking up for ammo and powder for a weapon that hardly has any range compared to other weaponsystems, and can't hit the broad side of a barn
@@Nightdare while in the barn
@@brett76544
Yeah, almost 😅
I think it's baffling that people consider BB's still viable weapons of war
They lack range, they lack precision, they lack versatility, they are vulnerable, they cost a huge amount, and all you get is a weaponsystem that can easily be replaced by more and/or better and/or cheaper systems currently available
Can we make the armor plate still ?
My thought was ... keep the 4 we got but modernize. pull out the turrets , cut off all the superstructure aft of the bridge , use the armored barbets for VLS , take out all the 5 inch turrets and put in the auto guns for the destroyers in thier place. Cut open the deck and yank out the steam system and put in the nuke reactors we have already for the Ford class. Use the void space for the fuel oil to up armor the hull with the same type of armor in a Abrams tank (D.U. ) unfortunately the 16inch guns are obsolete and the blast kills anything with a microchip but using the barbets for missiles saves alot of weight so much so can offset that with more armor and gain speed. The auto guns save crew and without the main battery can add missiles everywhere.
If lasers become really powerful gun based weapons might return. lasers potentially could easily destroy aircraft and missiles but naval shells would be harder to knock out with a laser.
They could also just pull out a mirror lul
@@BGraves mirror jets?
@@HGShurtugal Mirror-Hulled Jets. Really good against anti-aircraft lasers. Get sawed to pieces by CIWS because that crap reflects radar like it's going out of style.
@@BGraves mirrors don't reflect the full spectrum of light. a great example is modern windows reflect infrared light, but not viable.
Patriot pac 3 comes to mind as something that might be able to stop battleship class naval artillery. It’s hit to kill and it can take out ballistic missiles. Since there is some explosive elements in AP shells, a hit might explode the shell, but even if it doesn’t, the kinetic energy alone might shatter the projectile or bare minimum change it’s velocity and bearing. Idk if naval rounds could be detected in air because a 16 inch steel bullet that’s aerodynamic might have a pretty low rcs, but who knows with aegis radar systems being phenomenal
I'd go the complicated route, and reactivate a bunch of older battleships, while newer ones are under construction. You'll need training on them till the newer ones are built anyway, so might as well bring back a few and get them situated for when the new fleet arrives. I'd also build new ports to handle more ships, but I understand that that would take quite some time as well
can we have a video about the Torpedo (primary armament) Battleships contemplated by Russia and the US prior to WWI?
Ryan, you need to get yourself one of those "wind suppressor" microphone covers. As you were talking, the wind kept hitting your microphone and causing "static". It would really cleanup your audio.
My approach would be something vaguely similar to what was done in the first place all those years ago. The first class of battleships I would build would be somewhere around 550' - 600' long with two twin turrets (fore and aft) featuring 12" smoothbore high-velocity guns. Other armament would include 155mm AGS type weapons, 57mm, 30mm Goalkeepers, missiles and possibly a couple high energy laser systems. Propulsion would be gas turbine providing a speed of around 32 knots.
“Speak American, Kawasaki!”
@@flaminggamingturtledragons915 basically take IJN Mikasa, size her up to about an iowa'a length and instead of all her secondary guns, swap them for modern Point Defense Systens(PDS) and missile launchers. Top speed of 32 knots but if the New Jersey record is believed flank could be 34 to 35 knots. Did I get anything wrong OP?
@@vanta_8lack591 electronics today are more durable than 30 years ago to withstand the concussions from the main guns, right?
The AGS is dead. The shells are simply too expensive even at scale.
A related answer might be when NASA looked at building another Saturn V Moon Rocket engine.
They quickly found out that no one remembered how to do all the fiddly wielding involved, and no one made the parts or manufacturing machines either.
NASA worked out it was easier to keep the shape of the plumbing, but to redesign all the components from scratch.
They ended up with something lighter, cheaper, and using a tiny number of parts.
In naval terms that means keeping the range and power of the guns, but probably not using guns any more. Or go the Project Babylon approach and use oil and gas companies to build the big gun parts.
Out of curiosity, Ryan, what would you do if suddenly a Navy Admiral walked onto the ship and said something like, "You've been doing great work on New Jersey. She's really looking good... But we're going to have to require you to give her back. We're reactivating the old girl. Refits, repairs. The whole 9 yards."
I mean... Wouldn't you be basically out of a job unless the Navy hired you on as a consultant for the ship since you know so much about it?
There would not be many ship yard or Naval personnel that would have the experience on that type of hull even getting the blueprints would be a challenge but not impossible. It would be awesome to see one built from scratch.
@@bernardtaylor7768 The New Jersey has all its archived blueprints - the problem is they don’t quite match the ship (undocumented features and all).
The US Navy would have to find a new name too - there is a current USS New Jersey in service.
I have heard that establish titels are a sceam company from Hongkong! Is that true?
The guns and armor were probably payed for separately to keep the ship's armor and armament secret to the enemy. They navy most likely payed for the armor and armament without naming the ship as to keep each ship's abilities/weaknesses secret at the time.
Or because nobody agreed what was going to go on it until the last minute ... lol
I think that things like guns and armour were not purchased by the yeard- they were fun rished by the gov - in effect issued. I believe this still happens today with weapons and certain other stores.
Most likely it was bond money that paid for it.
That’s NOT how procurement worked in the 1900s. And heavy armor plate has no use for anything that isn’t a battleship.
New or used would depend on how quickly you needed them. In prevention or preparation for a war new would be the way to go. You can automate some functions and add/design for what you need .
If at war and needed. Than you reactivate. You get it cheaper and faster. Than you can make a follow-up decision on if you need more of them or better and build new while still using the older ones.
I would have to say new build would be better. Rebuilding using our existing Iowas would mean that either they would have to gut all utilities and replace them (did you account for that? I didn't think so...) as well as all other systems that were added after the shell was built, including propulsion systems, et al. Not to mention we would not have our WW2 museum ships which are priceless as they are! I am assuming that the new factories that you would have to build would have other useful things to build... after the new battleship was built. I am also thinking that this very question has an admiral somewhere drooling...
The only real advantage over the power projection offered by a carrier's air wing would be the ability to lay sustained gunfire on a target relatively close to the shore, which is the reason the USMC was so adamant about keeping the battleships in reserve.
If we wanted new construction ships to support such a mission, we might consider a simpler armored monitor that could operate in the littoral and pound targets ashore. Choose your caliber.
If you could somehow reproduce a 16-in gun with its supporting life cycle and ammunition trains, you might even consider a rocket assisted projectile that could reach out much further than BB-62's 16 in 50s.
Just as (if not more) important: Could you trust the ship builders to actually build a properly functional warship, or would you get another LCS/Zumwalt clusterf***?
Yeah it took about 50 years for the US to build it's current carrier fleet. If it were to be theoretically destroyed in a war they'd really be no way to replace it until the sailors were in the old folks home.
Shipbuilders are not for fault of those mishaps. Even though they are useful ships in there own right the shipbuilder built a finished operational product based on the designs they where given. It’s the designers and people with messed up priorities with more focus on the money than the needs of our navy. So no shipbuilders are not the problem. Granted we do need more shipyards. But that’s another conversation.
hummm. I have debate as to the ship builder as to who to place the blame on there. NOT all blame in one spot. I place a fair bit for both classes on LM ! I place some of the blame for LCS on congress ! I thought original plan was only 1 or 2 both classes - then shift to a design that takes the best quality from each- which is blame on congress IMHO. IRT Zumwalt there is some slight blame on Bath SY (electricians). IRT Zumwalt - there was design work money given to both Raytheon & Lockheed Martin - Anyone recall why Raytheon won?
@@wfoj21 really we need to do away with no bid contracts and make a law that anyone 06 and higher has to wait 5 years after retirement to enter a defense industry.
The actual ship BUILDERS can do damn near anything. It's the accursed engineers, salesmen, and Pentagon types that can't decide what they want, or how to design it that would make this a non starter. Example... I'm working on a system to raise the US flag on a Zumwalt. This simple system has been in development hell for 4 years and shows no signs of ending.
What about a smaller, more affordable alternative? Like an Alaska class size ship with the front two turrets and a massive VLS array at the rear? I'm pretty sure you could get some crazy ranges and capabilities with a modern, guided 12-inch shell.
Id build new pocket battleship nuclear powered, in the long term building the infrastructure to make more battleships would be more beneficial. New yards could keep more ships in service, more tooling could make more jobs, and a new battleship would be cheaper in service and could be designed specifically to hunt down small fleets. It would never be a mainstay of a navy again but it could be a amphibious assault platform or fill a role similar to the convoy raiders of ww2
I think I would lean towards new build ships. That would also allow you to include both modernization items and "efficiency items" to lower the costs/number of the crew. One easy example, is looking at the various periscopes on the ship, many of them may be able to be replaced with an electronic camera system, similar to what the current Virginia-class Subs use. There would also be things like modern gas turbines and APUs, providing much more power. I would also want to look at maybe changing things, such as instead of the current 8 compartment engine/shaft arrangement, use a more efficient, modern setup. As for the shipyard question, I would argue in favor of building a new, modern, shipyard, using modern construction techniques, and while I would want future nuclear capability in the shipyard, for super carriers and whatnot, that wouldn't be a priority, at first. I would also likely want to include the various improvements then Navy wanted to "fix" on the Iowa-class, with the Montana-class battleships, before they got cancelled.
Established Titles is a scam
Same question. What does it costs to build Yamato class today with modern outfits. including modern composite armor (What is a battleship without armor plating ??)
If a battleship was nuclear powered, would a non penetrating hit cause the reactors to scram? I've pondered a modern battleship, and while I know that the odds of one being built are slim to none, I find it fun to think about. Also I wonder if it would be possible to use the big guns as a gun/missile system, or a guided munitions system with smart shells.
Aye, fun thing to speculate on. The nuclear carriers are shock tested to make sure they can take a hit and still operate, naval reactors are pretty tough. It might be easier to armor too, since reactors would take up much less space than boilers, potentially allowing much more protection to be added.
It doesn't look like the USS San Francisco had a scram when they hit the sea mount and that would be far more jolting than a non penetrating hit. Naval reactors are designed with battle damage and shock in mind. Also, even if it did scram, you could still pull steam and it is pretty much the most common reactor casualty practiced.
@@ionparticle I was actually wondering myself how big the nuclear reactors would be, but shockingly, information on the Navy's nuclear reactors is hard to come by. But if you created an inner citadel just around the reactor and its control equipment you could make a sort of reactor barbette that could be much thicker, and combined with belt armor would make actually damaging the reactor very difficult.
Nuclear reactors are protected. I've been on a carrier at high speed that caused the ship to from fore to aft to experience heavy cavitations and the ship had no issue doing for a few days while it crossed the atlantic.
A nuclear-powered battleship with railguns, modern weaponry, and electronics is such a good idea
The first question you'd have to ask is what role this battleship is going to perform.
It would be just to make the rest of the world scratch there heads and wonder why . And ask if they need to build one now
There aren’t any suited ones tho - unfortunately
Missile arsenal ship. No big guns. Would actually be relatively cheap for the weapons carried.
@@panpiper We already have agsis ships
@@matsv201 We do not have ships that can ripple fire hundreds of Tomahawks to swamp the fleet defence of an entire enemy task force. A single Missile arsenal ship could do just that.
A intresting question is a technical question. Can you build a modern complete Battleship. I'm speaking specifically the concussion placed on a Battleship's 16 (probably a much larger caliber today) placed on the nuclear power plant. There's other variations of this question based upon various types of modern technology.
I could only imagine the unity and pride that this country has long been without brought back with an Iowa class battleship reactivation. And the message to the rest of the world.
The interesting question for me is what mission would you build them for? Land attack? Perhaps a highly survivable multi-purpose cruiser design like a 21st century Alaska class at 30-35k tons.
We should build a new battle cruiser.
No we shouldn't. It would be useless and extremely expensive.
@@rring44 Bet you’re fun at parties....
Yessssss!! A up-to-date Alaska-class!! 😊
Off topic question, when watching large naval gun firing you see what looks like pieces of paper floating around. Is this part of the propellant charge?
Instead of large guns, a new Iowa might be equiped with hypersonic missiles and lasers (for defensive purposes). Armor might be submarine steel (HY100) to simplyfy procurement. Chobham type armor might be used but that sounds costly. The ship might even mount an Aeigis ashore system for ballistic missile defense like what Japan is planning to do but on a ship the size range of Moskva.
Would there be any point to a huge missile / gun platform? Would it not be better to have more destroyer or missile cruiser class ships?
Build new. I've been in shipbuilding most of my life. Keeping a ship that old in service is a struggle, witness the carrier Enterprise.
You are spot on with discussing development costs for new systems. They rarely ever come close to the original estimates.
I think the way to go would be to build new but to instead update old plans. it seems most things are sorted, aside from the features on the superstructure, and I would replace the no2 turret with VLS, to give a better air defense. To drive the point home, if the design changes were minimal, and if a VLS module could be a drop-in replacement for a turret, it could help the others lower their costs of maintenance, especially if there were common parts.
If I am a senior USN flag officer in a service which has a sudden need for gunwagons? Run both programs simultaneously and hope both produce results. Do not ATTEMPT to tell me Uncle Sam can't pay for it.
We could have a battle force well over 500 if uncle same was willing to write the check. The problem is he’s not gonna with certain people in power.
@@seanpruitt6801 "The problem is he’s not gonna with certain people in power."
Yeah, sane people. We have no adversary or possible adversary with a fleet that would require us to have 500 ships for equivalent force projection. China is a joke regardless of what their propagandists and allies in this country try to fill people's heads with on social media. We have all the power we need with our hidden boomers and our ELEVEN operating supercarriers, of which NO other nation has even one operating supercarrier. Just one of our supercarrier task forces would easily wipe out all of China's or India's carriers combined--an China and India are enemies.
Spend less time believing crap you read online. A fleet the size of what we had in WW2 would require the entire nation be on a war footing. Not that I think that would be a bad idea, as I feel Russia and China have already committed acts of war against our country with their proven interference in our online systems and flood of propaganda into our social media, and Russia's nuclear arsenal was poorly maintained even during the soviet era--I can't imagine they have anything functioning today with the brain drain that has happened during Putin's watch.
i would try to do both, i would build a new ship, but only so much parts of the ship that dont need new infrastructure. then i would take an iowa battleship, taking their main guns and maybe the secondarys aswell, taking them apart, complete overhaul and install them on the new hull. in the meantime i would try to build up the infrastructre we need to build 16 inch guns/turrets. as soon as new guns are available we could either put them into storage or installing the overhauled guns back into the old BB, and installing the newer guns into the new hull.
the brits did it the same with their last BB HMS Vanguard
Funny how building an Iowa still costs less than the F35.
They should bring back the escort carrier, use the LACs as a base design, strip out everything for the marines put in maybe a small nuclear reactor (perhaps the same kind that goes in submarines?) Pull off the transport helicopters and leave a few for ASW work; you've got an escort carrier. This would lessen the risk of a serious gap in firepower if we ever lost a supercarrier for some reason.
I would say it depends on what you're considering the life of the ship. For an Iowa that would be what, 10 years from refit? Another thing that comes into play is how fast do you need it? Quick? Reactivate for SURE. Also a current war would mean you're probably not going to be using the ship for 20 years so the per year cost isn't as much of an issue. Reactivate, use, then when the war is over mothball and then put it back into museum status. Maybe lock down all the sensitive areas and leave it complete for easy reactivation if you need it in 5 years or so? Dunno, glad it's not my decision and that we don't NEED the ol' girls at this point. Must say though, I like 'em. I visited Iowa since she's local.
If it was an imminent threat, bring the Museum Ships into service and immediately begin building the needed services to recreate them. You could use the time refitting the Museum Ships to take the necessary measurements of them, and initiate the planning for the new ships. Portions that will be necessary for both is the rebuilding of the guns, and maintaining the armored belts, so relearning those portions on the Museum Ships would go a long way for the new ships.
I’m gonna say at least tree fiddy.
Definitely treefiddy.
I'm speculating that a modern battleship would be modular. Using one nuclear reactor from a Ford class carrier, the radar from the Ford as well. The missle system from the cruisers and only six 16" guns eliminating the turrent in the stern, leaving room for more launch tubes and self defense. Kind of like a kit bash.
I'd be torn between modernized iowas or brand new ones. I think a bbs could still be used in certain situations but the lack of range as compared to modern systems would need to be addressed in terms of the guns in my opinion. Maybe they could develop much longer range shells with today's technology. Think rocket powered shells like long range artillery of today. And also the sheer amount of man power required to properly man an iowa class would be a challenge I think with the military in need of more bodies as it is. Plus the historical factor that comes with the Iowas. I wouldn't mind keeping them in decent enough shape that they could be reactivated in an emergency or hell even get them running and sell cruises to pay for upkeep. Hell who don't want to go on a cruise on a ww2 bb.. I think ultimately I would build new and have them nuclear-powered and have all the modernized tech that allows them to not need as many crew members.
I think the crew size could be cut in half compared to WW2. Many systems could be much more automated (I’m thinking gun crews, engine room crews (nuclear requires fewer than fossil), fire suppression, command and comms, targeting-all reduced because of automation).
Fewer of those crews also means fewer cooks and other support crew. Maybe not half but I bet it’s less than the 2700 of the Iowa.
@@timothy098-b4f I agree
Gerald Bull put 2 spare 16 inch barrels together and could get sub orbital, so going from a 50 calibre to a 60 to 70 calibre barrels with a bigger charge and base bleed or assisted projects would give a modern BB incredible gun ranges going down to a 12 to 14 inch round would probably be better than a 16 inch.
Hey Ryan would a CG design based on the Atlanta-class Light Cruisers/Antiaircraft Cruisers would be feasible? Imagine a Modern version of an Atlanta with the latest USN radars, tech, systems and sensors, the length(165m long) and beam(52ft 10" wide) of the ship would make it possible to carry 2x 98 VLS cell launchers and still have enough room for 6 Mark-45 5" guns( 2 fore/2 sides/2 aft), Crew compartments and other important stuff you can find on a Ticonderoga Class and a Arleigh Burke Class DDG
Well isn't that dependent on what battleship?
I mean to build the Admiral Class Battlecruiser HMS Hood today would cost 318 million, 259 thousand, 710 pounds and 64 pence whereas back in 1920, she cost 6 million and 25 thousand pounds, the most expensive battlecruiser ever built
Putting a number of MLRS or HIMARS on the deck of an amphibious support ship would be a cheap option for a long range bombardment weapon. Having the option of guided missiles and a variety of missile types. And could be done very quickly with existing equipment.